Kiddushin, Daf Yod Het, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to explain ways in which a female slave is different from a male slave. The female slave may be redeemed against his will while a male slave may not. The question is whose will?

 

ומפדין אותה בעל כרחו : סבר רבא למימר בעל כרחיה דאדון

א"ל אביי מאי ניהו דכתבנא ליה שטרא אדמיה אמאי נקיט מרגניתא בידיה יהיבנא ליה חספא

 

And she is redeemed against his will: Rava thought to say that this meant against the master’s will.

Abaye said to him: How is this done? That one writes a document for him for her value? But why? He holds a pearl in his hand shall we give him a shard?

 

Rava assumes that when the mishnah teaches that he may redeem her against his will his means the master. Abbaye reads this to mean that if she does not have the money to redeem herself, we can write an IOU document for her value and give it to her owner and force her to be freed. But why should we have this right? The master currently now owns a pearl the slave. Why should we be able to force him to take a worthless shard (the document)?

 

אלא אמר אביי בעל כרחיה דאב משום פגם משפחה

 

Rather Abaye said: against her father’s will on account of the family disgrace.

 

Abaye therefore says we can redeem her against her father s will to protect the family from being disgraced by the fact that her father sold her off into slavery.

 

אי הכי עבד עברי נמי נכפינהו לבני משפחה משום פגם משפחה

הדר אזיל ומזבין נפשיה

ה"נ הדר אזיל ומזבין לה הא קתני אינה נמכרת ונשנית

 

If so, in the case of a Hebrew male slave too, we should force the members of his family to redeem him on account of the family disgrace? Then he will go and sell himself again.

Her too, he [the father] will go and sell her again?

Was it not taught: She cannot be sold and then sold again?

 

The question is why is this a difference between male and female slaves? Why not also force male slaves to be redeemed due to family disgrace? The answer is that the male slave can go sell himself again, whereas a female slave cannot be sold twice. So once we (the community) redeem her against her will, she can no longer be sold into slavery.

We should note that this opinion of Abaye and indeed of the other sages shows just how deeply discomforted they were by the very notion of a father selling his daughter into slavery.

 

ומני ר"ש היא דתניא מוכר אדם את בתו לאישות ושונה לשפחות ושונה לאישות אחר שפחות אבל לא לשפחות אחר אישות רש"א כשם שאין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות כך אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר שפחות

 

And whose opinion is this? R. Shimon. For it was taught: A man may sell his daughter for marriage, and then repeat; for servitude, and then repeat; for marriage after servitude, but not for servitude after marriage. R. Shimon said: Just as a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after marriage, so a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after servitude.

 

According to the first opinion, once a man marries off his daughter, if she is divorced or widowed while still young, he can marry her off again. If he sold her to be a slave and she was freed while still young, he can sell her off again. And if he sold her to be a slave, and she was freed while still young, he can still marry her off. But if he sold her to be a wife, he cannot sell her later to be a slave. R. Shimon is more restrictive and rules that once sold into servitude, she cannot be sold again.

 

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא (שמות כא, ח) בבגדו בה כיון שפירש טליתו עליה שוב אין רשאי למוכרה דברי ר"ע ר"א אומר בבגדו בה כיון שבגד בה שוב אין רשאי למוכרה

And this is the same dispute as the following Tannaim. As it was taught: [He shall have no power to sell her to a foreign people,] seeing that he has dealt deceitfully with her [bevigdo vah] once he spread his cloak over her, he can no longer sell her, the words of R. Akiva.

R. Eliezer says: Once he has dealt deceptively with her, he can no longer sell her.

 

The Torah states that if he did not designate her to his son as a wife or marry her himself, he must set her free. He cannot sell her to non-Jews. The phrase used for deal deceitfully is bevigdo bah. Beged (bg d) is the root for dealing deceitfully but it is also the root for the word clothing. R. Akiva reads the word as if it means clothing once the master has spread his clothing over her, i.e. he has married her, can no longer sell her. Once she was married, the father can no longer sell her. R. Eliezer reads the word differently since the father dealt deceitfully with her by selling her the first time, he can no longer sell her.

במאי קמיפלגי ר"א סבר יש אם למסורת ור"ע סבר יש אם למקרא ור"ש סבר יש אם למקרא ולמסורת :

 

What do they argue about? R. Eliezer holds: the traditional text [i.e., letters without vowels] is authoritative; R. Akiva holds: the text as read is authoritative; whereas R. Shimon holds: both the traditional text and the vocalization are authoritative.

 

R. Eliezer holds that the text as it is written is authoritative. Thus we can read it without the vocalization, as if it says bevagdo. This refers to his betrayal of her. R. Eliezer would hold that once the father has sold her, he can never sell her again. R. Akiva says that the way that the text is read is authoritative. It is read as bevigdo which he reads as his clothing was upon her. Once she has been married, she cannot be resold.

R. Shimon says both ways of reading the text are authoritative. Thus she cannot be sold neither after she was married once, nor after she was sold once.